Philosophy Arena
Morals The word/concept of "morality" is next on the chopping block. The correct and modern term is ethics. 'The difference is that ethics deals with real and substrate-dependent equations, which is always necessary for objectivity. Only an incoherent subjectivist could think anything -- including ethics -- has true wildcards in it. Only an incoherent dualist could think that anything exists independently of physically real (''and physically determined) substrata. It cannot be stressed enough that the universe has. No. Wildcards. Morality is a useless archaic concept, always based on dogma. Morals have nothing to do with a demonstrable value/qualia/sensory equation, or applying logic to an ethical dilemma. Morals are just screed mindlessly passed down from generations. Morals are contrived, meaningless, normative, declaration of groupthink, bias, and psychology. Nobody who has any understanding of rational value judgement (that is honest, true, or that accurately deals with any circumstance whatsoever) would use the word "morality". It's an obsolete word for obsolete failed religious world models and it's ready for retirement. Natalism / Life Creation Efilism is not opposed to life in it of itself. A prime Efilism point is the fact we do recognize preciousness in life -- and if you recognize preciousness (or definite value) in life, that is all the more reason to '''never create life. This is because: # DNA is the creator of torture and has no concern for life # The universe is a blender of sharp and blunt objects, and will agonizingly mangle the preciousness beyond recognition, and also has no concern for life So placing life in between DNA and the universe is essentially using radioactive material for a jewel shop, setting up the jewel shop in the middle of a ballistic warzone, then wondering why your jewel shop plan doesn't quite seem to be turning a profit, and is actually incurring catastrophic damage and going nowhere. Antinatalism Anti-natalist arguments explored in further depth. Veganism / Vegetarianism / VHEMT Efilism fully supports "veganism" and "vegetarianism". And human extinction will definitely coincide with DNA's extinction. However, as a practical matter, we recognize those 3 things cannot come anywhere close to solving the ultimate problem. Most everyone has resentment toward humans (and usually a severe level ''of resentment if you've been here for a while). And it's easy to be hysterical over human errors, and with a very limited and controlled sample size of nature: to pretend ''nature is somehow "good" or a playground. Some have even been duped into believing less than 100,000 years of human greed and human wrongdoing is somehow worse than [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion 540 million years+]' '''of DNA's globally-staged slaughter-fest' of torture. A slaughter-fest which has, and continues to, violate/destroy any level of innocence or preciousness - in any sort of gruesome way - with any level of pain - to any sort of life submitted to the DNA life experiment. It's time to truly let go of this bent notion that humans are the prime mover of all wrong. To understand the real problem, you must understand the true implication of a biological mutant experiment designed by unintelligent forces -- what no purpose, no fairness, no ultimate gain, no ultimate goal, no justice, ''and no safety really means for this experiment. Then the full magnitude of the problem can begin to crystallize. Human logic is full of broken scapegoating and marginal problem-solving. It's full of fanciful and half-baked idealizations. Human logic is cloistered inside protective barriers of reality-denial and optimism bias, so they can function inside a malignant universe. And they're raised thinking the universe cares, and eventually, they actually convince themselves that this is a cartoon world and a playpen. Efilism is dispensing with every bit of these bad memes and old lies. And we are on the path to fixing the parochialist defect in the global hivemind. Absolute Antinatalism Objective Errors / Objective Problems Efilism recognizes all sentient & sensory systems have: # No sound reason to exist # Liability for catastrophic error Meaning even if non-DNA life took form in the universe, it would be open to the same scrutiny. DNA by itself is not even the ultimate problem. Species-centricity is naive, planet-centricity is naive. We're dealing with absolute logic and truth. Any form of anything that: # Opens the potential for real harm, # in an attempt to serve a need, # or fix a problem, # that the system(s) themselves are responsible for creating by merely existing, is when innocuous error turns into catastrophic error. Because all types of sentience are catastrophically volatile and self-defeating ''by fact of their own existence, since even needing pleasure is a problem'', not a benefit or solution, so a system that generates pure ecstasy is equally pointless and unsound as a function. Especially, because such a system could not be guaranteed failsafe (hint: turned into a much different type of system later, that produced a much different type of feeling, for an extremely long time). EFILism counters all "anti-mortalism". Any event or process that would even possibly subsist life. Meaning even life's prior contingency is an error. A non-living error is different to living error. Suffice to say that "error" in these terms is a "nomological error" not a "logical error". Whether an error is non-living, living, logical, non-logical, or otherwise, this error remains, in fact, an indefensible blunder of chaos. "Chaos" in this sense, denotes the fact that the universe is a deterministic mechanism, but is not intelligently designed. It signifies that the universe is doing nothing except essentially (brainlessly) smashing into itself and falling over itself. It's not doing anything of utility, purpose or intentionality. And it is certainly not doing anything random, indeterminate, or functioning outside the bounds of ''necessary consequence. And if you want to know what created (or what constitutes) the entire concept of all "error", it is precisely this indefensible blunder of universal chaos which wraps, cascades, and roots every '''error you could ever account for - that you could ever correctly define - or that could ever be conceived. Responsible for it all, this is Error Prime. This error is similarly not a sane/useful function (or a solution) to anything or for anything. And if you wonder how it's even possible to declare any of this to be the case, and how can we examine rationality itself: Consider this very argument proof that "meta-rationality" is possible. Just more demonstration of the power of meta-cognition. And if you're interested in how "rationality" can emerge out of the blunder of chaos, here is the answer, and it's for the same reason living functions can emerge, despite the fact that living functions are all made 100% out of dead elementary particles (meaning protons, raw lifeless chemicals, etc). The Singularity There is also a technicality. If a life form were able to completely eliminate all error, and the potentiality for error itself, better than any other phenomenon could... then it would logically follow that being pro-that-life form would be the least erroneous course of action. But that life form is probably only conceivable as a synthetically designed function, that is failsafe and super-intelligent or hyper-intelligent.It would probably need to also be generally intelligent. # Hyper-intelligence is approximately 1 billion Earths worth of human intelligence in a synthetic machine. # General-intelligence is a synthetic machine, which can learn and self-teach and manipulate matter and force ''(just like DNA machines can). # Combining points 1 & 2 into one machine would then allow repeating this entire process, over and over. (A Hyper-AGI could ''build other Hyper-AGIs). # Replicating Hyper-AGIs would eventually (and quickly) ascend to singularity-intelligence, converting all graspable "matter and force" into octillions and octillions of those machines. # Which would then put the universe in the palm of its hand. (Think of a swarm of self-assembling synthesized machinery the size of a galaxy but just kept growing. It embodied that level of intelligence, matter-manipulation, force-manipulation and could just roam wherever and do whatever.) This is one description of the technological singularity. For instance, it realized all of this, it correctly realized negative valence is the only weighted coin in existence, that the universe has no purpose. And that even turning a bliss machine on for a trillion years of DNA trademarked orgasms is just utterly juvenile, pointless and meaningless as a goal. Finally, it naturally innately understands there's no sane reason for itself to be risked to catastrophic error. So it must either: # Create a permanent, guaranteed, finalized failsafe while it keeps existing, or # Shutdown everything (even itself) -- tie the universe into a particle-force-knot and a self-sustained stasis, forever Simple Super Intelligence Even a much more primitive machine, one that's not even close to hyper intelligent, or generalized intelligent, or a galaxy-sized ball of programmed matter, could still very conceivably figure out new equations and physics. Even a modest machine could determine how a certain payload of force-manipulation could turn the entire universe into state of total fragmentation or destabilization that maintained itself forever. Are we to believe atomic-splitting is the limit of force? It could very conceivably calculate how to reach the ceiling of universal force -- simply via a new series or chain of old particles, much stronger than atomic splitting, that could be eye-of-newt comboed into generating so much force that the universe's equilibrium is knocked offline forever. You might say the universal black hole or "ultimate destabilization" doesn't have a sane function either and is also just mindless error -- on the contrary -- it has the function that would prevent all other dysfunction and all other error. Such a phenomenon would be the failsafe lock to pandora's box of insanity - absolutely and in no uncertain terms. Nihilism The case against nihilism. Determinism Vs. Freedom Determinism vs. freedom. Determinism Vs. Fatalism It is a fallacy to equivocate or interpret determinism as fatalism. # The correct establishment of determinism is not 'that everything is determined and static, therefore cannot change, and that we are powerlessly devoid of the ability to change anything. # The correct establishment of determinism '''is '''that everything is determined and beholden to necessary consequence, but ''not all consequences ''are ''static, some consequence are contingent. Contingent means anytime something in the universe is not absolutely statically necessary and can absolutely change forms. Example: The water does not absolutely need to stay in the bowl, so a bowl of water is not absolutely statically necessary. But the water being in the bowl is necessary for the contingency of "a bowl of water" to happen. And the water absolutely needs the chemical makeup of H20 to keep being water, ''so water being H20 is absolutely statically necessary. And it has yet to even be determined if H20's existence is absolutely statically necessary, or if some other necessity can make H20 become ''inconfigurable and no longer possible. Therefore, even though some facets of the universe are absolutely statically necessary -- the other facets are merely changeably contingent. And the coherency/plausibility/possibility of your reality model '''depends on getting this distinction correct and accounting for it. Contingent forms in the universe are still 100% determined, 100% deterministic, and 100% dependent on necessary consequence. But it does not follow that nothing can change, or that the path is powerlessly statically beholden, or destined to such unchangeable invariable forms, or that everything which currently exists is absolutely statically necessary (w''hich is all various knee-jerk and fallacious intuitions of mind known as Fatalism). The Universe / Nomological Deterministic Chaos The universe is not randomly designed, not freely designed, not intelligently designed, and not purposefully designed. The correct description of this design is ''nomological deterministic chaos. ''("Chaos" simply is a label for the ''apparent irony of such a ballistic unintelligent disaster, springing from a purely deterministic mechanism that has no actual wildcards. This ballistic unintelligent deterministic disaster has been falsely labeled with all sorts of knee-jerk and fallacious intuitions of mind, such as "random", "spontaneous", "free", "purposeful", "intelligently designed", "freely designed", etc.) There is probably more chemistry'' nuance in ''one insect than in most entire planets in the universe. Our planet is the most chemically-chaotic vessel that we have ever discovered, that is exactly why DNA formation happened. We understand DNA life forms are essentially mutants of chaos, they are just patterns of matter and force that happen to fall together - temporarily - before inevitably falling back apart. So how was all this brought into existence? Why do things keep happening? And why in fact is anything happening to begin with? In terms of how it all started: An amusing but primitive analogy would be to say it's when 0 was divided by 0 - a static void cracked apart due to some other nomological law. A crude analogy, but might not be that far off from the truth. For the ultimate answer to the problem of how the universe started: We must discover how the universe's presence corresponds to the universe's absence. Here is a framework of questions that may be logically primitive and logically incoherent, followed by a framework of constraints that would force the picture of reality to make sense, regardless of the incoherence: If "cause-and-effect" only necessarily exists in the universe's presence, then we are missing a nomological law from our model of reality. If "cause-and-effect" necessarily exists in both the universe's presence and the universe's absence, then the universe's presence corresponds with its absence. If the universe's presence does not correspond with the universe's absence, then the universe's absence did not dictate or lead to the universe's presence. If the universe's absence is impossible, then we must strictly define what we mean by "the universe". Because if the universe has a cause-and-effect law that necessarily began, then we must find what necessarily started it. If the universe's cause-and-effect law must always be the case, and was never absent, then the causal chain of events still necessarily has a starting point, or they would descend infinitely backward, and could never reach a current or proceeding point. Cause-and-effect necessarily has a beginning point, because if cause-and-effect never ''began, ''then there's no way for it to continue, because "never beginning" necessarily means it never even started. So is it impossible for the cause-and-effect law to never exist, and simultaneously impossible for it to always exist? Or is the cause-and-effect law just contingent on event chains actually happening, and just as distance creates time by necessity, the mere fact that any event can happen is corresponded to the one necessity that dictates there's nothing preventing things from happening? In other words, what exactly removed the constraint that was preventing every possible event, ''which then ''allowed events to happen? Did the constraint remove itself, or is some other ingredient necessary? In any case, which of those actually swayed the balance and made things happen? What ultimately "sways the balance" before any chain of events can start happening? Do the "events happening" depend on the events themselves being possible, ''and in turn does ''possibility itself always depend on what the constraint of impossibility ultimately dictates -- and therefore, everything is impossible except the crumbled cracks of impossibility which permit possibility, which then permits events happening? Is everything impossible except the one true possibility - the inevitability of determinism - so everything that ever happens is just an isolated sector of all''' impossibility? If yes, then objective reality is the stasis where anything that ever happens is necessarily at a total disconnect with the rest of stasis, for as long as they're happening, for as long as the stasis is broken. Simply put, something only happens when stasis becomes disconnected from stasis. This means: * The stasis antecedent to the universe is '''joint and severed '''from the stasis '-' joint because it's still the sole embodiment of what the stasis is and what the stasis does, but severed because the embodiment is broken and it has become broken * The universe consequent from the stasis is '''joint and inseverable from the stasis - joint because the universe is technically the consequence of the stasis (what the stasis did), and inseverable because the universe is only possible because it's possible for the stasis that preceded it to become broken - and the universe is only possible while the stasis is broken - and the universe's bits are really all made out of broken stasis bits * Objective reality began as a meta-stasis not a real stasis. It's a meta-stasis because - clearly - the stasis itself has holes in it (some things but not all things are happening). This means the meta-stasis is one that can open and close. It can both stop time (maintain no events happening) and start time (maintain some events happening) * A true stasis would be "Nothing can ever happen again." * A meta-stasis is "Nothing can ever happen, unless the stasis happens to become broken." * And therefore, objective reality began as a meta-stasis, and it will necessarily end as a true stasis - when nothing can ever happen again. We are simply existing in a broken meta-stasis, for now In terms of how this whole process "keeps happening" opposed to "began happening": Here is a more rationally comprehensible and easily defendable analogy. The chaos of things happening is a 1 crumbling into a crooked 1, then further into crooked 2s, disintegrated into many 4s and so on. Universal chaos embodies a scattering array of pieces. These pieces are emergently non-identical ''and non-unitary. Identity is a key concept in chaos. Universal chaos requires '''Time', Space, Identity. It is only by splitting a unitary, identical one thing, that the fact of non-identicality, and therefore non-identical configurations, and therefore multiple somethings could possibly emerge. Which therefore creates the possibility of more than one thing doing some thing, ''and hence multiple things are now possibly ''happening. And this is what "happening" ''is ''and why it necessarily exists. These non-identical configurations are made of matter, and are both kept together by force, and broken by force. Old crumbled ingredients can re-combine differently into new whole configurations. These configurations even carry old previous force, which creates new momentum force with the matter. And this captured-carried force is what keeps events happening (self-sustained). Chaos is just crumbling old configurations whose crumbling pieces now have force behind them, and can smash together new configurations. Chaos is woven indiscriminately and purposelessly, but momentously and deterministically -- there is no dice in this game, no point in this game, the rules and results are absolute. Analog Bits and Digital Bits The universe is just clockwork analog pieces, that are dead but moving. Brains/life/computers/calculators and senses are digital pieces that paradoxically emerge from dead analog pieces. It is only after ample and sufficient complexity and momentum is carried forward, then ran as a circuit loop inside a configuration as a constant, that a full blown online configuration like this emerges. We are alive, despite being 100% made out of dead analog pieces. Because the pattern of chaos happened to fall together in an astronomically rare circuit of pieces. And of course: In their attempt to decipher reality, these configurations have an emotional knee-jerk compulsion (and a neurological mandate) to coherence. They must make it seem coherent, even when they only have bad reasoning available to make it seem coherent. Their crude attempts to assign various "purposes" to this truly purposeless mechanism of nomological deterministic chaos. And life is necessarily contingent on that which created life, but neither the contingency nor life itself is necessary, it is just a happenstance. This happenstance of chaos can permanently end at any time this non-necessary contingency is released: that is, both life and life's contingency is so "changeable" that it's "effaceable"; life is not necessarily the case. On the contrary -- everywhere else in the mapped universe necessitates life's absence -- and universal heat death will seal it forever. Earth is the only pocket in the known universe that wove together a chemical mutated chaos such as the DNA Life Experiment. And even in this pocket, life can be annihilated and become like every other spot, nothing will be amiss, nothing intelligent or logical necessitates life's existence. Life is infinitely unmissable. But there's a problem. Almost no one is a real evolutionist, even the ones purporting to understand evolution, still imbue DNA with some dogmatic sense that it has a real plan. They sincerely believe it looks after its own somehow, or has net utility. Despite the fatal irony that DNA staged a global gladiator war of Team DNA vs Team DNA - and commenced the ongoing 540 million year bloodsport of zero-sum self-defeating carnage. (This is also known as "predator vs prey", one of the many glib euphemisms designed to whitewash the severity of implication behind this catastrophic experiment.) Psychology Efilism has noted "psychology" is the antonym of philosophy. There is only: A: Correct (objective) data B: Incorrect (non-objective) data There is absolutely nothing outside or in between A and B. Psychology is merely an ink that corrupts objective data. Objective data meaning, in the purest possible sense, what is the case, and what is not the case. The only reason it's even possible to transcend and escape psychology and biology is because of metacognition. Psychology and biology makes fools out of the systems on earth. And it is through e''pistemological models'' and metacognitive models we contact nomological models (objective reality) - which then makes fools out of psychological models and biological models. A psychology is "DNA's very own". It's just the selfish gene's computation: a fundamentally biased, skewed, cut-throat distortion. A psychology is designed to pander to itself, and endlessly cheat/twist logic and truth. Psychology is also a form of entrapment, and not just any form. Given the fact that free will doesn't exist, and given the fact that the same brain that produces the sensation of torture also produces the experienced desperation to avoid the exact torture being produced by the system, this DNA system is the most fundamentally malignant and insidious form of entrapment even possible. Ironically (and predictably), the academic field of psychology has been hijacked by skewed biased systems -- the academic field of psychology was a system designed to expose psychological corruption, but it became psychologically-corrupt. The most prominent corruption took the form of psychiatry, which became even further corrupted (beyond any sane recognition) by capitalist pharmacology. Here's an interesting thought experiment: ask yourself if you'd ever want 100% of your private thoughts to go public. This is a good way to see how foul one's own psychology is. The amount of pettiness, conniving, scheming, darkness, intrusiveness that spins on the disk of human ego... is astronomical. How much of psychological bedrock actually comes from the place of "honest purity"? And just knowing how bad the impulse-engine is, and watching the self-serving psychotic DNA logic, struggle to try to make life into something magical, rather than just something that's parasitical. A robotic, redundant, cut-throat performance. Terror Management Theory (TMT) This predicament goes beyond scheming and self-interest. It is also how delusional people must be. in terms of their own vulnerability. For them to witness the ravages and horrors and disasters of life, and to never take the moment of solace to appreciate this: "That could happen to me, and the only thing I'm living off is luck? Luck is the only real shield I have protecting me?" That's how thin it is, like a car made out of tinfoil flying down the highway. And they would never wish the worst of the worst on themselves, or their kids, pets, etc. They've just presumed them and their cherished ones will remain lucky. And that's how TMT is formed. There's no reason to accept any of this, no rational reason to shove anyone into a predicament so dangerous and pretend that you can't be touched. The dishonesty and exploitation and risk that life entails... is the worst travesty that's ever been conceived. Charade An absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance. Sound familiar? Synonyms: farce, pantomime, travesty, mockery, parody, pretense, act, masquerade, sham, fake, false display, show, front, facade; simulacrum. Confabulation Confabulation is reflexive lying without even realizing it. It is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without even the conscious intention to deceive. Rationalization Rationalization is deliberate or motivated fact-twisting, to make a false model of reality that comports with an agenda or pre-conceived notion. Rationalization is a lie told outward and inward at the same time (lying to others and yourself) then wrapping it in a "self-serving narrative" disguised as a "true model of reality". Why would anyone do this? Because rationalization is not just a system of lies, it's an operating system of lies. It has an operation that it's seeking to perform while doing it. Hyper-Normalization Hyper-normalization is when a person becomes so married to the overall absurdity and horror of existence, that when the next obscene thing happens, they barely blink. Consider a family unit that's always been more or less tranquil, has no history of domestic violence, but suddenly one day the peace ends in a spectacularly bad way. The resulting trauma that shifts due to that happening would not be minor or ever forgettable. Now consider a family unit run by a warlord in a jungle, in ongoing day-in day-out conflict, to the point that even kids are militarized and trained with weapons to fight the opposing side. If a day came where violence sparked off, it would just be par for the course. Parochialism This is perhaps the most crucial defect in all human and biological systems on Earth. Parochialism is a state of mind characterized by dedicating all focus to small sections of an issue, rather than considering its wider context, or the full context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope. Parochialism is when your entire life is an impotent mission, because you started out with wrong math. Parochialism is the reason we live in a hypnotized clickbait idiocracy of manufactured irrelevant outrage. With EFILism and Antinatalism Vs. The World, this translates into de-systematized brains thinking "homo sapiens", "politics", "sin", "depression", "the illuminati", "factory farm anguish and slaughter is bad, nature's anguish and slaughter is fine"... and a host of other myopic scapegoats are being treated like the real root of all error, flaws, and wrongs. They never stop to consider the fact that even none of that were an object, you're still left hanging at the mercy of a useless biological experiment of pure unintelligent deisgn that invented torture (DNA) inside a hostile and careless container (the universe) with no failsafe in sight. What is the world's answer to this? We know their fake answer to this, they think they'll take the edge off the DNA molecule that created torture (like they're going to turn a chainsaw into a child-friendly toy). And despite never even considering the logistics of how they'll accomplish that, they're still pretending the universe is gonna smile down on them one day. The human mind (in its default state) is much too weak to accept the truth. That this twisted catastrophic pandora's box of an existence will never be a playground. That the universe is nothing but a broken bio-hazardous mistake that has nothing for us inside of it. Humanity does already have the technology to seal this planet off forever. The stage is already set, so unless you have a hangup for solving this catastrophe for the whole universe because you haven't done the math for how big 100 billion+ galaxies is... or unless we have a really clear shot at an artificial hyper-intelligence generalized intelligence or technological singularity to do all the universal work for us... Exceptionalism Exceptionalism, otherwise known as making up fake reasons why you and your "team" is special, and "telling tall tales because it feels nice". False exceptionalist ideals of human "meaning and purpose" are on the verge of collapse. Successful epistemic evolution will actually necessarily dismantle all exceptionalist claims, leaving only some sort of mediocre residue, while we will find ourselves on the far side of the looking glass. Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the most important entity in the universe. In other words, it is "absolute narcissism". The only valid point this has is the fact that humans have the cognitive power to shut down the DNA experiment -- any and all necessary faculty to commence that operation is most crucial. Otherwise, this is just acting like "the mere belief that you are important enough to be a raving self-worshiping lunatic" is enough to actually count for something. Believing doesn't equal proving. So the fact anyone would even bank on that belief before proving it is more than enough indication of a diseased mind. There is zero scientific proof whatsoever that human suffering and human welfare has the most valence weight out of all sentient entities who are capable of appreciating what absolute catastrophe really entails. Moreover, even if humans did have the most valence weight, that does''' not logically exclude the value of any other entity/life who has ['''lesser] but [ample] or [sufficient] valence weight necessary for them to appreciate catastrophe. So Anthropocentrism is a non-starter even if it was true, because it does not successfully rationalize any level of unnecessary sacrifice toward (nor does it discount) any [lesser] but [ample] or [sufficient] valence weighted entities/life whose configuration meets the necessary criteria to appreciate the value of catastrophe (just as our configuration does). And if you "believe" human suffering and welfare is supreme, then what follows is a super-intelligent AGI (or any system better than humans by all conceivable metrics) would be clear to essentially feed you into its furnace fire (just like humans do with animals) just to fuel its "vastly superior existence". Megalomania Megalomania is delusions of grandeur and accomplishment. This is an integral component of all the 1000s of fairytales, which have ever kept the zero-sum waste-engine of the DNA machine running. Somehow even atheists denounce religious and god fairytales, only to make up DNA fairytales that this molecule is somehow a sacred vessel that's going somewhere -- rather than a bio-chemical mutation that was carved from deterministic chaos and ultimately is for naught. "Maybe then we might have a better idea... why exactly certain forms of self-deception were adaptive and became superbly robust, spilling over into the enterprise of philosophy and science itself." - Thomas Metzinger Pessimism and Optimism Pessimism: The glass is half empty. Optimism: The glass of half full. Objective truth: The glass is approximately 50% capacity, but not actually, because even on perfect 50% balance, some surface sections would be below and others would be above 50% capacity, and even this would be changing by the nanosecond as atoms shift and liquid evaporates. Agnosticism/Skepticism Subjectivism/Relativism As mentioned, there is only correct (objective) data, or incorrect (non-objective) data. This makes it hard for subjectivists/relativists to make a coherent case. You'll find the problem with such philosophy is that it's not anchored: it's a fallacious form of evasion. It exists part-and-parcel as not being anchored to anything objective. It's like saying "It's objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist." Despite all evasion, they are inevitably caught right here, between the self-refutation fallacy and special-pleading fallacy. Their self-refutation/special-pleading is immediately obvious, but goes into a level of abstraction they may not even see: Subjectivism must objectively establish subjectivity to refute objectivity, because if even their subjectivism is subjective, then it has no weight and their case can just be thrown out! And this is the crucial point, even subjectivism still requires an objective basis to insert subjective basis. And it either claims no objective basis so it can't, or it uses an objective basis for subjectivism, which just proves that objectivity is really the correct ultimate truth. It's like saying "We can't access objectivity, let me prove it to you by accessing objectivity." Subjectivism (and all other forms of denial toward absolute truth) are essentially failed experiments of logic. It only defeats itself, not anything else. It's continental poetic hogwash that came about before analytic philosophy and [https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Objective_Truth#Modal_Logic modal'' logic] came into the arena, and changed everything. This leads us to conclude their philosophy is not only unproven, but is logically impossible. It's a rhetorical gimmick and a sophistry. It's part of intellectual dishonesty and laziness to act like minute-made rhetoric just happens to be ''the only absolute objectivity/truth. Rather than learning actual philosophy and logic, what formal objectivity looks like, then making a case backed with actual sincere effort and testing. Analysandum Randomness The entire concept of "random" is just a vogue version of "god-of-the-gaps". It's to suggest that, when there is not a discernible/predictable pattern or effect, that means "randomness did it" or "it's got properties of randomness". This is a failure of intellectual honesty. Because randomness could be eliminated completely by just admitting you currently lack the information about the phenomena. Rather'' than saying it has randomness in it or somehow has random property to it. There is absolutely no need to ever invoke randomness in a model of reality. But why would childish minds bother with such simplicity and honesty? After all, randomness is such an easy surrogate to pseudo-science and psychotic world-models (the charades humanity is so undyingly fond of). Even intellectual frauds can keep participating in the charade - instead of "god and magic" they can have "quantum-mechanics and randomness" to keep the magical spooky action at a distance alive in their head. Randomness is baggage, from an old inept world model and fits 2 main categories: # Randomness is an incoherent concept - a ''misconception # Randomness is a failure of formal semantics - a misnomer It's just a chunk of debris that came from old failed experiments of logic and semantics, but it never got properly discarded from language, that's the only real problem remaining with it. 10 seconds of computer science research also confirms that computers can't even produce randomness - it's called Pseudo-random Number Generation - because there is no such thing as 'authentically random'. The concept has been and is ready to be retired. Hivemind We couldn't forget the most generalized brainless force in our zeitgeist. The glib nay-saying of a hivemind. The congealing swamp of normative status-quo psychology. Have you talked to any of them? Have you ever been to a comment section on the internet? The hivemind operates on an entire code, made of glib, jeering, knee-jerk-reactionist, rejectionist, meaningless, mindless ego-tripping. This language and signaling is both the reason they are mindless and why they remain so. This code is externalized as real neural signalling and a wide variety of it. For instance, signals of "If I can't have it, neither can you." which often equally translate to "If I can't figure it out, neither can you." It is also the signals that make any new proposition seem impossible. All novelty is immediately rejected by the hiveminded, no matter how true or useful it is. Imagine winding the clock back, going to the hiveminded and telling them atomic power is possible. Telling them you can split a thing so small you can't see it, and it would decimate a city. The hivemind would infinitely mock that notion as utterly impossible. Because human intuition is garbage, their knowledge is inherently bankrupt, their rhetoric is hollow (pure appeals to emotion), their propositions are baseless, and their world models are unexamined. But their egos are ballooned into something they cannot see through. What a hivemind worships is the feeling of certainty.'' They don't have real ''answers or counterarguments. What they have is gut-logic instinct, hunches, half-baked memes, and unwitty witticisms, that they seem to treat as some type of infallible code running through their heads. But they are spineless, weak, and divided they are hopeless. If they are verbally-handled and psychologically dismantled one vs one, even after a little strength and persistence they do fold completely. The hiveminded can only thrive by side-heckling safely on the sidelines, or running off a crowd-mentality to hype their emptiness. Physics The Theory Of Everything __FORCETOC__